into. This suggestion is not to be regarded as in any sense a proposal made by this Government, for it of course fully recognizes that it is not its privilege to propose terms of agreement between Great Britain and Germany, even though the matter be one in which it and the people of the United States are directly and deeply interested. It is merely venturing to take the liberty which it hopes may be accorded a sincere friend desirous of embarrassing neither nation involved, and of serving, if it may, the common interests of humanity. The course outlined is offered in the hope that it may draw forth the views and elicit the suggestions of the British and German Governments on a matter of capital interest to the whole world. "Germany and Great Britain to agree : "First. That neither will sow any floating mines, whether upon the high seas or in territorial waters; that neither will plant on the high seas anchored mines except within cannon range of harbours for defensive purposes only; and that all mines shall bear the stamp of the Government planting them, and be so constructed as to become harmless if separated from their moorings. "Second. That neither will use submarines to attack merchant vessels of any nationality except to enforce the right of visit and search. "Third. That each will require their respective merchant vessels not to use neutral flags for the purpose of disguise or ruse de guerre. "Germany to agree: "That all importations of food or foodstuffs from the United States (and from such other neutral countries as may ask it) into Germany shall be consigned to agencies to be designated by the United States Government; that these American agencies shall have entire charge and control, without interference on the part of the German Government, of the receipt and distribution of such importations, and shall distribute them solely to retail dealers bearing licences from the German Government entitling them to receive and furnish such food and foodstuffs to noncombatants only; that any violation of the terms of the retailers' licences shall work a forfeiture of their rights to receive such food and foodstuffs for this purpose; and that such food and foodstuffs will not be requisitioned by the German Government for any purpose whatsoever or be diverted to the use of the armed forces of Germany. "Great Britain to agree : the "That food and foodstuffs will not be placed upon absolute contraband list, and that shipments of such commo-lities will not be interfered with or detained by British authorities if consigned to agencies designated by the United States Government in Germany for the receipt and distribution of such cargoes to licensed German retailers for distribution solely to the non-combatant population. "In submitting this proposed basis of agreement this Govern ment does not wish to be understood as admitting or denying any belligerent or neutral right established by the principles of international law, but would consider the agreement, if acceptable to the interested Powers, a modus vivendi, based upon expediency rather than legal right, and as not binding upon the United States either in its present form or in a modified form until accepted by this Government." I have, &c. WALTER HINES PAGE. Declaration presented to the Governments of Argentina, Brizil, Chile, Denmark, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland. United States, and Uruguay by the British and French representatives at the respective capitals. GERMANY has declared that the English Channel, the north and west coasts of France, and the waters round the British Isles are a "war area," and has officially notified that "all enemy ships found in that area will be destroyed, and that neutral vessels may be exposed to danger." This is in effect a claim to torpedo at sight, without regard to the safety of the crew or passengers, any merchant vessel under any flag. As it is not in the power of the German Admiralty to maintain any surface craft in these waters, this attack can only be delivered by submarine agency. The law and custom of nations in regard to attacks on commerce have always presumed that the first duty of the captor of a merchant vessel is to bring it before a Prize Court, where it may be tried, where the regularity of the capture may be challenged, and where neutrals may recover their cargoes. The sinking of prizes is in itself a questionable act, to be resorted to only in extraordinary circumstances and after provision has been made for the safety of all the crew or passengers (if there are passengers on board). The responsibility for discriminating between neutral and enemy vessels, and between neutral and enemy cargo, cbviously rests with the attacking ship, whose duty it is to verify the status and character of the vessel and cargo, and to preserve all papers before sinking or even capturing it. So also is the humane duty of providing for the safety of the crews of merchant vessels, whether neutral or enemy, an obligation upon every belligerent. It is upon this basis that all previous discussions of the law for regulating warfare at sea have proceeded. A German submarine, however, fulfils none of these obligations. She enjoys no local command of the waters in which she operates. She does not take her captures within the jurisdiction of a Prize Court. She carries no prize crew which she can put on board a prize. She uses no effective means of discriminating between a neutral and an enemy vessel. She does not receive [1915. CIX.] 3 F on board for safety the crew of the vessel she sinks. Her methods of warfare are therefore entirely outside the scope of any of the international instruments regulating operations against commerce in time of war. The German declaration substitutes indiscriminate destruction for regulated capture. Germany is adopting these methods against peaceful traders and non-combatant crews with the avowed object of preventing commodities of all kinds (including food for the civil population) from reaching or leaving the British Isles or Northern France. Her opponents are, therefore, driven to frame retaliatory measures in order in their turn to prevent commodities of any kind from reaching or leaving Germany. These measures will, however, be enforced by the British and French Governments without risk to neutral ships or to neutral or non-combatant life, and in strict observance of the dictates of humanity. The British and French Governments will therefore hold themselves free to detain and take into port ships carrying goods of presumed enemy destination, ownership, or origin. It is not intended to confiscate such vessels or cargoes unless they would otherwise be liable to condemnation. The treatment of vessels and cargoes which have sailed before this date will not be affected. March 1, 1915. SIR, Mr. Page to Sir Edward Grey.—(Received March 9.) American Embassy, London, March 8, 1915. WITH regard to the recent communications received by my Government from His Britannic Majesty's Government and that of France concerning restraints upon commerce with Germany, I have received instructions to address to you certain enquiries with a view to a more complete elucidation of the situation which has arisen from the action contemplated by the Governments of the two allied countries. My Government finds itself in some difficulty in determining its attitude towards the British and French declarations of intended retaliation upon commerce with Germany by reason of the nature of the proposed measures in their relation to the commerce of neutral countries. While it appears that the intention is to interfere with and take into custody all ships, both outgoing and incoming, engaged in trade with Germany, which, in effect, seems to constitute a blockade of German ports, there is no assertion of the rule of blockade permitting the condemnation, regardless of the character of its cargo, of any ship which attempts to enter or leave a German port. In the language of the declaration—“The British and French Governments will therefore hold themselves free to detaia and take into port ships carrying goods of presumed enemy destination, ownership, or origin. It is not intended to confiscate such vessels or cargoes unless they would otherwise be liable to condemnation." The former sentence above quoted claims a right pertaining only to a state of blockade, while the latter sentence proposes a treatment of ships and cargoes as if no blockade existed. The two together present a proposed course of action previously unknown to international law, and neutrals have in consequence no standard by which to measure their rights or to avoid danger to their ships and cargoes. It seems to the Government of the United States that the paradoxical situation thus created should be altered, and that the declaring Powers ought to make a definite assertion as to whether they rely upon the rules governing a blockade, or the rules applicable when no blockade exists. The declaration presents other perplexities. The latter of the two sentences above quoted indicates that the rules of contraband are to be applied to cargoes detained. The existing rule covering non-contraband articles carried in neutral bottoms is that the cargoes be released and the ships allowed to proceed. This rule cannot, under the other sentence quoted, be applied as to destination, and the question then arises as to what is to be done with a cargo of non-contraband goods which might be detained under the declaration. The same question may be asked as to cargoes of conditional contraband. The foregoing comments apply to cargoes destined for German ports. Cargoes issuing from them present another problem under the terms of the declaration. Pursuant to the rules governing enemy exports, the only goods subject to seizure and condemnation are those owned by enemy subjects carried in enemy bottoms, and yet under the declaration it is proposed to seize and take into port all goods of enemy "ownership and origin." A particular significance attaches to the word "origin." The origin of goods in neutral ships destined to neutral territory is not and never has been a ground for forfeiture except in cases where a blockade is declared and maintained. To what, then, would the seizure under the present declaration amount except to delay the delivery of the goods? The declaration does not indicate what disposition would be made of such cargoes owned by a neutral; and another question arises in the case of enemy ownership as to what rule should then come into play. If another rule is to be applied, upon what principles of international law would it rest, and upon what rule, if no blockade is declared and maintained, could the cargo of a neutral ship issuing from a German port be condemned? If it is not to be condemned, what legal course exists but to release it? My Government is fully alive to the possibility that the methods of modern naval warfare, particularly in the use of the submarine for both defensive and offensive operations, may make the former means of maintaining a blockade a physical impossibility; but it nevertheless feels that the point of the desirability of limiting "the radius of activity" can be urged with great force, especially so if this action by the belligerents can be construed to be a blockade. A very complicated situation would undoubtedly be created if, for example, an American vessel laden with cargo of German origin should escape the British patrol in European waters only to be held up by a cruiser off New York and taken into Halifax. I have the honour to add, for your information, that a communication similar to the above has been addressed to the Government of the French Republic. I have, &c. WALTER HINES PAGE. Memorandum handed by Sir Edward Grey to Mr. Page, ON the 22nd February last I received a communication from your Excellency of the identic note addressed to His Majesty's Government and to Germany respecting an agreement on certain points as to the conduct of the war at sea. The reply of the German Government to this note has been published, and it is not understood from the reply that the German Government are prepared to abandon the practice of sinking British merchant vessels by submarines; and it is evident from their reply that they will not abandon the use of mines for offensive purposes on the high seas, as contrasted with the use of mines for defensive purposes only, within cannon range of their own harbours, as suggested by the Government of the United States. This being so, it might appear unnecessary for the British Government to make any further reply than to take note of the German answer. We desire, however, to take the opportunity of making a fuller statement of the whole position, and of our feeling with regard to it. We recognize with sympathy the desire of the Government of the United States to see the European War conducted in accordance with the previously recognized rules of international law and the dictates of humanity. It is thus that the British forces have conducted the war, and we are not aware that these forces, either naval or military, can have laid to their charge any improper proceedings, either in the conduct of hostilities or in the treatment of prisoners or wounded. On the German side it has been very different : 1. The treatment of civilian inhabitants in Belgium and the north of France has been made public by the Belgian and French Governments, and by those who have had experience of it at first hand. Modern history affords no precedent for the sufferings that have been inflicted on the defenceless and noncombatant population m the territory that has been in German |